248 BARBOUR: ZOOGEOGRAPHY. 



only from St. Thomas and Vieques. It" may occur upon St. Croix and St. John, 

 but there is no definite record for these islands. 



Eleutherodactylus martinicensis (Tschudi). 

 TscHUDi. Class. Batr., 1838, p. 77. Bodlenger, Cat. Batr. Sal. Brit, mus., 1882, p. 211 (part). 



This famous little frog, so easily and so often carried from place to place, 

 is now very widespread in the Antillean region. Although this species develops 

 without metamorphosis by skipping a free living larval stage, it was really the 

 Porto Rican E. auriculatus (Cope) in which this characteristic was first noticed, 

 although all the Lesser Antillean and many of the Greater Antillean species have 

 been at one time or another included under this name. 



In Jamaica its occurrence in Hope Gardens is due to its introduction by 

 Lady Blake (Barbour, Bull. M. C. Z., 1910, 52, p. 288). The records for San 

 Domingo (Boulenger, loc. cit.) and Porto Rico (aud.) refer to E. auriculatus 

 (Cope). Fielden says that it was introduced into Barbados from whence in 

 1882 there were specimens in the British museum. From Barbados it is said 

 to have been introduced into Grenada; but the species from Grenada is a differ- 

 ent species, named E. johnstonei. This may be taken to indicate that the south- 

 ern Lesser Antilles support a species quite distinct from true H. martinicensis, 

 and which has been introduced perhaps from St. Vincent to Barbados and 

 Grenada. Most unfortunately no St. Vincent frogs are in the collection, and 

 Fielden (Zoologist, 1889, p. 298) gives no clew as to whence the Barbadian frogs 

 came. Since records from practically all the West Indies have been published 

 for " Hylodes martinicensis," it is best to admit here only such as undoubtedly 

 belong to this species in its restricted sense. The Museum has several hundred 

 from Martinique, the type locality, but whence, Stejneger states, it was said to 

 have been brought from Guadeloupe. From this island also there is a very large 

 series in the collection. Others are preserved from St. Kitts, and neither Stej- 

 neger nor I have been able to find that they were in the least different. I can 

 say the same for specimens from Saba, and Monserrat. It has been recorded 

 by Cope from St. Eustatius and St. Martins. Reinhardt and Liitken (Vid. 

 Middel. nat. foren. Kjobenh. for 1862, 1863, p. 159) record it from Barbados; 

 and as this is more than twenty years earlier than Fielden wrote, it does not lend 

 any confirmation to his statement, made in 1899, that it was introduced into 

 Barbados twenty years before that date, which would be 1869. The specimens 

 which Reinhardt and Liitken record must have been taken prior to 1862. There 



